A court ruling last December would seem to indicate that no, bloggers are not privy to the same legal protections afforded so-called real journalists.

Via the Washington Examiner:

This past December, federal judge Marco Hernandez of Oregon issued a ruling in the libel trial of Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox that has dangerous First Amendment implications.

Hernandez ruled that blogger Crystal Cox was not entitled to the same protection under media shield laws that other members of the press enjoy. This ruling made it easy for a jury to find her guilty of libel. That result threatens the First Amendment rights of all citizen-journalists.

I would argue that the work being performed by bloggers can sometimes be far superior and more timely than that being manufactured by the main stream media. From my personal experience, every time that I have come across something for the first time on an outlet like MSNBC or CNN, and commence researching, that topic has already been widely covered in the blogosphere.

But we're not debating quality of work here. We're debating basic First Amendment rights.

In a terrific op-ed by Jason Stverak, a strong case to apply those rights to bloggers is made:

"... why is this issue so complicated? Bloggers, like all citizens of the United States, have First Amendment rights. Has the definition of a journalist changed? Or has perception and therefore legal definition simply not adjusted to modern technology?"

He adds that:

The public now relies on citizen-journalists to perform an invaluable service to our democracy -- serving as government watchdogs.

Media shield laws must be revised to make clear that bloggers and all citizen-journalists deserve the same protection as the city hall beat-writer at the local newspaper.

During the ‘90s, a few divorced fathers, concerned about their children, exposed a few things about the courts. Their 1st Amendment rights were violated (ordered by judges to remove sites, jailed, etc.), and that was the beginning of what you see in process now. Have fun. Enjoy the slide.

3
posted on 02/16/2012 6:32:32 PM PST
by familyop
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)

Limitations on free speech fall into the “harm” and “offensive speech” catagories. You have the old saw about yelling fire in a crowded theater” which is comman sense. However, Joel Feinberg’s limitations against offensive speech threatens us through the ever expanding “hate speech” limitations as well as prohibitions against offensive language applied to certain religions. The slope is indeed slippery and we are only a quarter of the way down.

Media shield laws must be revised to make clear that bloggers and all citizen-journalists deserve the same protection as the city hall beat-writer at the local newspaper.

That is, city hall beat reporters should be subject to exactly the same laws as the rest of us. The First Amendment doesn't define who is a journalist, it doesn't even define journalism as an occupation. The logical meaning of "freedom of the press" is the right of the people to spend money (as a printer does, on ink and paper, etc) on propagating their individual views according to their own purses.

The operational meaning of "journalist" for purposes of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold "law" is actually wire service journalism. And wire service journalism is not about the public interest, it is about interesting the public for profit and influence. Thus, journalism is not about boring topics of unchanging significance but about "Man Bites Dog" stories. In reality, of course, dogs bite men and almost never the other way around. Which is what makes the conceit of journalism as "the first draft of history" so ridiculous.

Bullying is the new boogey-man. My idea of bullying is someone who hurts you or threatens to hurt you in return for money, objects or assistance (like homework).
My kids told me the new, slippery definition. Disagreeing with someone angrily and hurting their feelings in the process can also be bullying. If I tell you that you are wrong and you cry, I’m now a bully.
Now we not only have to assume that he who is the most emotionally invested in a topic is more right, but telling them that they are wrong is now morally wrong.
We’re starting to see this scope creep in shutting down those who say homosexuality is wrong because that bullies gays. It’s not even shutting down speech you find offensive, just what you say hurts your feelings.

Nowhere, but then again, the article says that this court ruling wasn’t about 1st Amendment issues, it was about whether a state media shield law applied to bloggers. The 1st Amendment alone must not be sufficient protection against libel in this case.

A “blogger” is doing little different from what Paul Revere did with his engraving of the Boston Massacre; it’s simply an upgrade in the technology. Dollars to doughnuts the Founding Fathers had that kind of “journalism” in mind when they crafted the First Amendment.

14
posted on 02/16/2012 10:18:46 PM PST
by NonValueAdded
(Limbaugh: Tim Tebow miracle: "He had atheists praying to God that he would lose.")

From my personal experience, every time that I have come across something for the first time on an outlet like MSNBC or CNN, and commence researching, that topic has already been widely covered in the blogosphere.

If it weren't for blogs and bulletin boards, the MSM wouldn't cover most of those stories at all.

The fact is that Free Republic is currently engaged in raising
funds for operating expenses. To keep us “on the air” so to speak.
Yet here you are, contributing nothing to the conversation and
attempting to divert Free Republic’s traffic on to your little
blog in order to get hits and the subsequent ad revenue associated with those hits.

BAD Rusty.

I am not mistaken in my analysis. You are a blogpimp.
The fact that you excerpt your own material proves this.

Now, Rusty.. it’s never too late to redeem yourself.

First, post some comments. Here on Free Republic. Not on a blog.

Second, knock off excerpting your own material. Nobody wants
to visit your blog to read the rest of your writing. Maybe
if your material is compelling, some folks will be intrigued
enough to visit your blog. Trying to trick folks into clicking
your blog is a very scummy practice and is frowned on by many here.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, you can show that you are
not just here to use Free Republic as an advertising tool by
donating to the fundraiser. You can do so here:

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.